Allahabad Court July 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Emperor Vs. Bechu Chaube and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All124
Stuart, J.1. The first point raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants is one upon which there has been divergence of opinion in courts, in India, It appears from the record that the witnesses for the prosecution against the applicants were examined-in-chief up to the. 10th of April, 1922, and on that date the applicants were questioned generally on the case by the trying Magistrate, under the provisions of Section 342, before they were called on for their defence. After that, the witnesses for the prosecution were cross-examined and, further, one witness, a head constable, Ram Gopal Singh, was examined for the first time for the prosecution. The. evidence which he gave was to the effect that he had arrested the applicants. The point taken by the learned Counsel is that by examining this head constable after the statements of the accused had been taken, the trying Magistrate acted contrary to the provisions of Section 342. The learned Counsel is undoubtedly right in that content...
In Re: NaraIn Prasad Nigam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All128
Stuart, J.1. This application in revision is of an unusual kind. Fifty-five persons were convicted, on the 19th of December, 1921, under Section 17(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. XIV of 1908) and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine. The imprisonment was, in some cases, rigorous and, in some cases, simple. These persons could have appealed. They did not appeal. The period of appeal has long since expired. On the 26th of July 1922, something more than seven months after their convictions, this application has been put in in revision, not by these persons, but by a practising pleader of Cawnpore called Babu Narain Prasad Nigam, on their behalf, suggesting that the convictions be set aside. The learned Counsel, who appears for Babu Narain Prasad in support of this application, has stated very frankly that the fifty-five persons in question, who were convicted, have not themselves applied to this Court and that they, in no way, approach the Court on the subject of...
Gajadhar Mahton Vs. Ambika Prasad Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All78; (1923)ILR45All133; 69Ind.Cas.645
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. The applicant in this case applies for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council upon the ground that the value of the subject-matter in suit and of the proposed appeal is more than Rs. 10,000. In the court of first instance the claim was for Rs. 9,307-8-0 which included interest upon the mortgage up to the date of the filing of the plaint. The plaint then contained a prayer that interest pendente lite might also be awarded and future interest to the date of payment. The learned Subordinate Judge gave a decree for Rs. 9,307-8-0, and then made a calculation of the amount of interest which was due from the date of the.institution of the suit to the expiry' of the period of six months provided for in Order XXXIV, Rules 2 and 4. The result of that calculation was that he added Rs. 693-0-4 to the already mentioned sum of Rs. 9 307-8-0. The addition of these two sums exceeds Rs. 10,000.2. Dr. Sulaiman has argued before us that the value of the. subject-...
Emperor Vs. Sipahi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All130
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. In this case five persons, caste-fellows and relatives, residents of village Diha, near Karchhana, in the southern part of this district, were tried before the Sessions Judge at Allahabad, on charges under Section 302 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge of rioting may be disregarded, more particularly in view of the fact that one of the accused persons, Sheoratan Singh, has been acquitted by the Sessions Court, on the ground that the evidence implicating him in the affair is not altogether satisfactory. The other four accused, Sipahi Singh, Sunder Singh, Bisheshar Singh and Bira Singh, have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, while admitting that the question of sentence is one of some difficulty, has passed sentence of death on Sipahi Singh, and submitted the record to this Court for confirmation of the same. He has passed the lesser sentence of transportation for life on the oth...
Bhawani Bhikh Vs. Sidh NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All18; 70Ind.Cas.820
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to an occupancy-holding which belonged to Sital and devolved on his death, on his widow, Musammat Bundao. Musammat Bundao died in 1318 Fasli. She left a daughter, Musammat Munni, who had a son Mahadeo, Mahadeo died in 1320 Fasli leaving two sons who are the present plaintiffs-respondents.2. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that they were minors when Mahadeo died and that their mother Musammat Phul Jhari asked the defendant to manage the cultivation on their behalf. Their complaint was that the defendant was not giving to them an account of the profits. The suit was accordingly brought for possession of the said occupancy holding with mesne profits from 1320 Fasli to 1326 Fasli.3. The Trial Court dismissed the claim, holding that the plaintiffs had no title, because their father, Mahadeo, was not joint in cultivation with Musammat Bundao and Sital and had not acquired any right to succeed to the occupancy holding of Sital or, Mus...
NaraIn Prasad Nigam and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All85; 71Ind.Cas.243
Stuart, J.1. This application in revision is of an unusual kind. Fifty-five persons were convicted, on the 19th of December 1921, under Section 17(a), of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIV of 1908) and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine. The imprisonment was, in some cases, rigorous and, in some cases, simple. These persons could have appealed. They did not appeal. The period of appeal has long since expired. On the 26th of July 1922, something more than seven months after their convictions, this application has been put in on revision, not by these persons, but by a practising Pleader of. Cawnpore called Babu Narain Prasad Nigam, on their behalf, suggesting that the convictions be set aside. The learned Counsel, who appears for Babu Narain Prasad in support of this application, has stated very frankly that the fifty-five persons in question, who were convicted, have not themselves applied to this Court and that they, in no way, approach the Court on the subject of th...
Bechu Chaube and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All81; 71Ind.Cas.115
Stuart, J.1. The first point raised by the learned Counsel for the: applicants is one upon which there has been divergence of opinion in Courts, in India, It appears from the record that the witnesses for the prosecution against the applicants were examined-in-chief up to the 10th April 1922, and on that date the applicants were questioned generally oh the case by the trying Magistrate under the provision's of Section 342 before they were called on for their defence. After that the witnesses for the prosecution were cross-examined, and further, one witness, a head constable, Ram Gopal Singh, was examined for the first time for the prosecution. The evidence which he gave was to the effect that he had arrested the applicants. The point taken by the learned Counsel is that by examining this head constable after the statement of the accused had been taken, the Trying Magistrate acted contrary to the provisions of Section 342. The learned Counsel is undoubtedly right in that contention. Und...
Sipahi Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.234
1. In this case five persons, caste-fellows and relatives, residents of village Diha, near Karchana, in the southern part of this district, were tried before the Sessions Judge, at Allahabad, on charges under Section 302 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge of rioting may be disregarded, more particularly in view of the fact that one of the accused persons, Sheoratan Singh, has been acquitted by the Sessions Court, on the ground that the evidence implicating him in the affair is not altogether satisfactory. The other four accused, Sipahi Singh, Sundar Singh, Bisheshar Singh and Bira Singh, have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, while admitting that the question of sentence is one of some difficulty, has passed sentence of death on Sipahi Singh, and submitted the record to this Court for confirmation of the same. He has passed the lesser sentence of transportation for life on the other three accused, but has, at the sa...
Bishnate Singh Vs. Musammat Ram Sri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.525
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of remand made by the learned District Judge in the dispute between the parties. The chief objection is that the suit Pending between the parties is of such a nature that it can be tried by the Court of Small Causes only. No such objection was taken, it seems, before the First Court or before the lower Appellate Court. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the opposite party that no revision lies from an order of remand. I think that the preliminary objection must prevail. The application is dismissed with costs....
Elahi Baksh and anr. Vs. Lala Suraj Narayan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All464; 76Ind.Cas.521
Rafique, J.1. It appears that the opposite party sued the applicant for ejectment in the Court of the Assistant Collector. One of the objections taken to the suit was that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction. The learned Assistant Collector yielded to this plea and rejected the claim of the plaintiff. The opposite party, the plaintiff in the case, went up in appeal to the District Judge, contending that the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Court. The District Judge after hearing the appeal accepted the contention of the plaintiff and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for trial n the merits. The case was so tried and the claim of the plaintiff was decreed. The defendant who is the applicant before this Court, preferred an appeal to the District Judge from the decision of the Assistant Collector. The Distract Judge returned the Memorandum of Appeal saying, that the appeal lay to the Commissioner. The Memorandum of Appeal, was thereupon taken and filed in the Court of Commi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »